ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1234   April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA<br /><br />083 Phil 487

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1234. April 30, 1949.]

    VICTORINO FLORO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA, Defendant-Appellee.

    Francisco Ventura and Eulalio Legaspi for Appellant.

    No appearance for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; "PACTO DE RETRO" SALE; NATURE OF RIGHTS IN. — A sale with pacto de retro transfers the legal title to the vendee (Alderete v. Amandoron, 46 Phil., 488), and the vendee is subrogated to all the rights and actions of the vendor (art. 1511, Civil Code), and therefore the vendee becomes the owner of the estate in fee simple subject to the vendor’s right of redemption. And he may mortgage the property or impose upon it any other charged, but if the vendor redeems it he (the vendor) is entitled to "receive it free of any charge or mortgage imposed by the vendee, but he shall be obliged to respect any lease made by the latter in good faith and in accordance with the customs of the place where it is situated."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF REPURCHASE AS REAL RIGHT. — The right to repurchase is a real right or interest therein which may be registered as an interest less than an estate in fee simple under section 52 of Act No. 496 and as such goes with the land and may be claimed against any person deriving title from the vendee.

    3. ID.; COURTS; JURISDICTION; ANNOTATION OF CONVEYANCE OR ENCUMBRANCE. — The petition shall be filed with the Court of First Instance and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered, according to the last paragraph of section 112 of Act No. 496, which provides that "any petition filed under this section, and all petitions and motions filed under the provisions of this Act after original registration shall be filed and entitled in his original case in which the decree of registration was entered."


    D E C I S I O N


    FERIA, J.:


    This is an appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila which dismissed, upon motion of the defendant, the action of the plaintiff to compel the former to deliver to the latter the owner’s duplicate certificates of title of five parcels of land sold with pacto de retro by the defendant to the plaintiff "in order that the latter may surrender them for the registration and notation of the aforesaid contract of pacto de retro executed in his favor by the defendant herein."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The ground upon which the order of dismissal is based is that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the action, but what the plaintiff should do is to present the deed in the office of the register of deeds of Occidental Negros and if the defendant refuse to surrender his titles after due notice, the plaintiff should ask the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros to require the defendant to produce said titles.

    The lower court did not commit any error in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint on said ground.

    According to the allegations in the complaint, the predecessors in interest of the defendant could not deliver their duplicate certificates of title of the land sold by them to the defendant on April 4, 1944, time of the sale, because they had lost them during the last war. The same parcels of land acquired by the defendant were on the same date sold with pacto de retro by him to the herein plaintiff. After liberation the defendant and appellee filed a petition with the court for the reconstitution of the original of the above-mentioned certificates of title, in order that the deed of sale in his favor could be registered. In compliance with an order of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros the plaintiff and appellant, on January 5, 1946, submitted to the court the deed of sale under pacto de retro with lease, executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff and prayed that the said deed be registered and annotated on the certificates of title that would be issued in the name of the defendant Santiago Granada. The court issued an order for the reconstitution of the titles of the aforesaid parcels of land, and on May 15, 1946, the Register of Deeds of Occidental Negros issued the transfer certificates of title covering said parcels of land in the name of the defendant Granada, who received them on May 17 of the same year, but refused to surrender said certificates to the Register of Deeds or deliver them to the plaintiff, and hence the filing of the plaintiff’s action.

    Attorneys for appellant contend that the plaintiff’s action is to compel the defendant to deliver to the former the duplicate certificates of title issued in the latter’s name in order that the plaintiff-vendee may register his interest in the land on those certificates issued in the name of the defendant-vendor. Because "a contract of pacto de retro sale is a voluntary deed of transfer which does not divest the land in fee simple from the owner. Hence, the interest of the vendee a retro in the land is less than an estate in fee simple. That being the case, according to section 52 of the Land Registration Law, no new certificate is entered or issued to the transferee, but his interest in the land is registered by filing with the Register of Deeds the instrument creating such interest and by memorandum thereof made by said Register of Deeds upon the certificate of title." [Of the registered owner. ]"

    This is obviously untenable. A sale with pacto de retro transfers the legal title to the vendee (Alderete v. Amandoron, 46 Phil., 488), and the vendee is subrogated to all the rights and actions of the vendor (art. 1511, Civil Code), and therefore the vendee is the owner of the estate in fee simple subject to the vendor’s right of redemption. And he may mortgage the property or impose upon it any other charge, but if the vendor redeems it he (the vendor) is entitled to "receive it free of any charge or mortgage imposed by the vendee, but he shall be obliged to respect any lease made by the latter in good faith and in accordance with the customs of the place where it is situated" (art. 1520, Civil Code). This contention of the attorney for appellant signing the brief runs counter to the opinion expressed by the same attorney in his book on Land Registration and Mortgages, page 90, to the effect that "the legal title is transferred to him (vendee), that is, he has the fee simple which is the registrable title in the initial registration, while the right to redeem the property retained by the vendor a retro should only be noted in the decree and certificate of title," or in the new certificate of title issued in the name of the vendee under sections 52 and 57 of the Land Registration Act No. 496. This opinion is correct, for the right to repurchase is a real right or interest therein which may be registered as an interest less than an estate in fee simple under section 52 of the same Act No. 496 and as such goes with the land and may be claimed against any person deriving title from the vendee (Pan Daguila v. Gaza, 12 Phil., 663; Mortera v. Martinez, 14 Phil., 541; Lucido v. Calupitan, 27 Phil., 148).

    Section 57 of Act No. 496 provides that "an owner desiring to convey in fee simple his registered land or any portion thereof shall execute a deed of conveyance, which the grantor or grantee may present to the register of deeds in the province where the land lies. The grantor’s certificate shall be produced and presented at the same time the register of deeds shall thereupon . . . make out in the registration a new certificate of title to the grantee, and shall prepare and deliver to him an owner’s duplicate certificate." And according to section 111 of the same Act, if the outstanding owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented, the Court may, upon petition of the vendee and after hearing, "order the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate upon such surrender." Said section 111, reads as follows: "In every case where the clerk or any register of deeds is requested to enter a new certificate in pursuance of an instrument purporting to be executed by the registered owner, or by reason of any instrument or proceedings which divest the title of the registered owner against his consent, if the outstanding owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented for cancellation when such request is made, the clerk or register of deeds shall not enter a new certificate, but the person claiming to be entitled thereto may apply by petition to the court. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner of any person withholding the duplicate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate upon such surrender."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The petition shall be filed with the Court of First Instance and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered, according to the last paragraph of section 112 of Act No. 496, which provides that "any petition filed under this section, and all petitions and motions filed under the provisions of this Act after original registration shall be filed and entitled in his original case in which the decree of registration was entered." (Italics ours.)

    Therefore, the order appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-1234   April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA<br /><br />083 Phil 487


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED